2/7/12: Randy Thomasson on Prop. 8 ruling

Thomasson available today to broadcast media by telephone or Video Skype

See SaveCalifornia.com's (Campaign for Children and Families) amicus brief: Read itSee the terrible 128-page ruling from the three-judge panel: Download it here

Sacramento, California -- Longtime pro-family leader Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, which represents moral virtues for the common good, has issued the following statement regarding the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreeing with homosexual judge Vaughn Walker that Californians' vote in 2008 to reserve marriage licenses for "a man and a woman' is somehow "unconstitutional":

"God created a man and a woman to fit together in marriage. The People of California have twice affirmed this beautiful, natural, and exclusive pro-family institution between a husband and wife, a man and a woman. The Ninth Circuit ruling to strike down man-woman marriage, by a Carter judge and a Clinton judge, is unfair to the voters, against our republic, against our democratic system, against the United States Constitution, against Nature, and against God and His beneficial design of family.

"It's illogical and unconstitutional to claim that natural, unchangeable race and ethnicity is the same as sexual behavior. That's not fair or true. Race and ethnicity are inherited, but science has never found homosexuality, bisexuality, or transsexuality to be inherited or unchangeable. Neither is this about commitment. As the divorce of leading anti-Prop. 8 lesbians Robin Tyler and Diane Olson demonstrates, the notion of homosexual 'marriage' is not really about 'commitment,' but is a political agenda forcing acceptance of homosexuality upon the children of America. Yet nothing is equal to marriage between a man and a woman. If you don't have a man and a woman, you don't have marriage.

"Judicial activists like Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins need to be reined in like Newt Gingrich has been saying about judicial activists. Marriage is not in the United States Constitution, so this case should never have gone to federal court. Now it will be appealed to the nation's high court, with Anthony Kennedy being the deciding vote. Fortunately, in past rulings favoring homosexuality, Kennedy has written against redefining marriage, making it likely that he will affirm California's right to reserve marriage licenses for 'a man and a woman."

The laws involved in Bowers and here . . . seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.

In other words, he concedes that these relationships may not be "entitled to formal recognition," i.e., marriage. He goes on immediately after to say:

This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the state, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects.

Presumably he's speaking of marriage here, and accepting that same-sex marriage, like adultery, might constitute "abuse of an institution the law protects." Then in his conclusion, Kennedy again says:

The present case . . . does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.

-- end --

SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization standing strong for moral virtues for the common good. We represent children and families in the areas of marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.

JavaScript is currently disabled.Please enable it for a better experience of Jumi.